United States District Court, D. Colorado
WYO PROPERTIES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiff,
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW Cause
A. Brimmer, Judge
Court takes up this matter sua sponte on
plaintiff's complaint [Docket No. 1]. Plaintiff states
that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Docket No. 1
at 1, ¶ 3.
every case and at every stage of the proceeding, a federal
court must satisfy itself as to its own jurisdiction, even if
doing so requires sua sponte action. Citizens
Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City &
County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289, 1297 (10th Cir. 1980).
Absent an assurance that jurisdiction exists, a court may not
proceed in a case. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great
Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005).
Courts are well-advised to raise the issue of jurisdiction on
their own, regardless of parties' apparent acquiescence.
First, it is the Court's duty to do so. Tuck v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th
Cir. 1988). Second, regarding subject matter jurisdiction,
“the consent of the parties is irrelevant, principles
of estoppel do not apply, and a party does not waive the
requirement by failing to challenge jurisdiction.”
Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de
Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (internal citations
omitted). Finally, delay in addressing the issue only
compounds the problem if it turns out that, despite much time
and expense having been dedicated to a case, a lack of
jurisdiction causes it to be dismissed or remanded regardless
of the stage it has reached. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Pinkard Constr. Co., No. 09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL
2338116, at *3 (D. Colo. July 28, 2009).
well established that “[t]he party invoking federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such
jurisdiction as a threshold matter.” Radil v.
Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir.
2004). Plaintiff invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) as the
basis for this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Docket No.
1 at 1, ¶ 3. Section 1332(a)(1) states: “The
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between  citizens of different States.” The facts as
presently averred, however, do not provide sufficient
information regarding plaintiff's citizenship.
complaint identifies plaintiff WYO Properties, LLC as a
“Colorado limited liability company whose address is
205 N. 55th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80634.” Docket
No. 1 at 1, ¶ 1. None of this information is relevant to
plaintiff's citizenship. While, for diversity purposes,
“a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every
State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and
of the State or foreign state where it has its principal
place of business, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1);
see Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196
(1990),  these considerations are irrelevant to the
determination of the citizenship of an LLC. See Siloam
Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d
1233, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[I]n determining the
citizenship of an unincorporated association for purposes of
diversity, federal courts must include all the entities'
when an entity consists of multiple tiers of ownership and
control, the entire structure must be considered for
diversity purposes. In other words, when an entity is
composed of multiple layers of constituent entities, the
citizenship determination requires an exploration of the
citizenship of the constituent entities as far down as
necessary to unravel fully the citizenship of the entity
before the court. See U.S. Advisor, LLC v. Berkshire
Prop. Advisors, No. 09-cv-00697-PAB-CBS, 2009 WL
2055206, at *2 (D. Colo. July 10, 2009); SREI-Miami, LLC
v. Thomas, No. 08-cv-00730-MSK-BNB, 2008 WL 1944322, at
*1 (D. Colo. May 2, 2008); see also Hicklin Eng'g,
L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006);
Turner Bros. Crane & Rigging, LLC v. Kingboard Chem.
Holding Ltd., 2007 WL 2848154, at *4-5 (M.D. La. Sept.
24, 2007); cf. Carden, 494 U.S. at 195 (“[W]e
reject the contention that to determine, for diversity
purposes, the citizenship of an artificial entity, the court
may consult the citizenship of less than all of the
has not identified its members and the citizenship of those
entities. See Docket No. 1. The Court is therefore
unable to determine the citizenship of plaintiff and whether
the Court has jurisdiction. See United States ex rel.
General Rock & Sand Corp. v. Chuska Dev. Corp., 55
F.3d 1491, 1495 (10th Cir. 1995) (“The party seeking
the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor must allege in his
pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction.”)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
foregoing reasons, it is
that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on December 27,
2017, plaintiff WYO Properties, LLC shall show cause
why this case should not be dismissed due to the Court's
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
 A corporation's “principal
place of business” is “the place where a
corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate
the corporation's activities.” Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010).
 This Court has previously noted that,
“[w]hile various state legislatures have decided to
permit the members of LLCs to remain anonymous to the public
at large, Congress has not created an exception to the
requirements of diversity jurisdiction which would allow the
members of LLCs to remain anonymous in federal court.”